Peptide Library

Human study PLS-00080

MOTS-c as a predictor of coronary lesions and complexity in patients with stable coronary artery disease.

Cross-sectional study · Not reported participants enrolled · not included in the assessments (other)

Version 1 · published November 7, 2026 · evidence through November 7, 2026 · research snapshot 2026.1.1 · methodology ev-1 · Automated assessment by AI (claude-opus-5-5 and claude-sonnet-5-5), not reviewed by a person.

Only the abstract was available. Essential methods may be missing, which limits what can be judged.

Reports of this study

Every publication, registration and abstract describing this one study. Participants are counted once.

  • MOTS-c as a predictor of coronary lesions and complexity in patients with stable coronary artery disease.primary · European review for medical and pharmacological sciences · 2022-08-01 · PMID 36066139 · DOI

Design and participants

Design
Cross-sectional study
Population
Consecutive patients with stable angina pectoris: those with stable coronary artery disease (CAD+) and those with normal coronary arteries (CAD-), assessed by SYNTAX score.
Conditions
Stable coronary artery disease, Stable angina pectoris, Atherosclerosis
Planned enrollment (registry)
Not reported
Enrolled
Not reported
Randomized
Not reported
Completed follow-up
Not reported

Intervention and comparator

What each group received. Related peptides, analogs and combinations are never treated as the compound itself.

    What the authors reported

    As stated in the sources. This is the authors’ account, not Peptide Library’s assessment.

    Adverse events

    None reported. That is not evidence of safety, and how safety was monitored isn’t described.

    The authors concluded (paraphrased): The authors found a strong correlation between MOTS-c levels and CAD. They suggest MOTS-c may help identify patients with CAD and allow early preventive treatment.

    Peptide Library’s assessment

    An automated assessment, made by AI separately from the authors’ conclusions and not reviewed by a person. How risk of bias is assessed.

    Limitations

    • other: MOTS-c was only measured as an endogenous biomarker and never administered, so no treatment effect can be inferred.
    • abstract only: Only a truncated abstract is available; the p-value and the methods details are missing.
    • confounding: Observational comparison of CAD+ and CAD- groups with no reported adjustment for confounders in the abstract.
    • inappropriate population: Patients with stable angina, not adults with obesity, insulin resistance or diabetes.
    • inappropriate endpoint: The study measured endogenous MOTS-c as a diagnostic biomarker. It did not test MOTS-c as an intervention, so it gives no efficacy or safety evidence.

    No risk-of-bias assessment has been published for this study’s results.

    Claims this study informs

    Where each value comes from

    • arms: PMID 36066139, abstract (Patients and methods, sentence 1) · extracted by AI (automated, not verified by a person) · abstract only
    • author_conclusion: PMID 36066139, abstract (Conclusions, sentences 1-2) · extracted by AI (automated, not verified by a person) · abstract only
    • design: PMID 36066139, abstract (Patients and methods, sentences 1-2) · extracted by AI (automated, not verified by a person) · abstract only
    • limitations: PMID 36066139, abstract (whole abstract) · extracted by AI (automated, not verified by a person) · abstract only
    • outcomes: PMID 36066139, abstract (Objective, sentence 3) · extracted by AI (automated, not verified by a person) · abstract only
    • participants: PMID 36066139, abstract (Patients and methods, sentence 1) · extracted by AI (automated, not verified by a person) · abstract only
    • population: PMID 36066139, abstract (Objective, sentence 3; Patients and methods, sentence 1) · extracted by AI (automated, not verified by a person) · abstract only
    • results: PMID 36066139, abstract (Results, sentence 1) · extracted by AI (automated, not verified by a person) · abstract only

    • Version 1 · published November 7, 2026 · evidence through November 7, 2026 · research snapshot 2026.1.1 · methodology ev-1 · Automated assessment by AI (claude-opus-5-5 and claude-sonnet-5-5), not reviewed by a person.

    These assessments describe published research. Records marked automated were produced by AI under the published methodology and have not been reviewed by a person; they can contain errors. None of this is medical advice, not a statement about any product’s safety for human use, and not a regulatory approval. Peptide Library’s vendor and partner relationships play no part in them (editorial independence).